Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Satish - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-38663-2021
Decided On : 03-02-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, emphasizing the need to avoid prejudice and the lengthy trial process before reaching a conclusion on the aggressor party.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others had attacked the complainant, while the petitioner contended that it was a case of version and cross-version, and that an attempt had been made to implicate all family members.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that the trial would take time to conclude and that keeping the petitioner in custody would serve no useful purpose.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of the aggressor party and the decision on the petitioner's bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to avoid prejudice and the lengthy trial process before reaching a conclusion on the aggressor party.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's bail application, ordering the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate.
JUDGMENT
Harnaresh Singh Gill , J. (Oral) - Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
2. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.140 dated 08.06.2021, registered at Police Station Chhainsa, Faridabad, under Sections 148, 149, 341, 324, 307, 379-B and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (final report submitted under Sections 324, 325, 341, 307, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959).
3. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner and other co- accused in furtherance of their common intention had given knife blows to Parveen after having caught hold of him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case of version and cross-version and it is yet to be ascertained by the trial Court on the basis of evidence as to which was the aggressor party and that a blatant attempt has been made to rope in all the family members of the petitioners in the present case. Learned counsel further contends that the challan stands presented; that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.07.2021, and that the conclusion of the trial would take time to conclude.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, while vehemently opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it was a third attack upon the complainant party by the petitioner and other co- accused; that cross-case bearing FIR No.192 dated 21.07.2021, Police Station Chhanisa, was got registered by the uncle of the petitioner, against the complainant party after a period of more than one month of the registration of the present FIR.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The challan stands presented. As stated above, it is a case of version and crosss-version and it is yet to be ascertained as to which was the aggressor party. The prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
7. The petitioner has been in custody since 12.07.2021. Trial of the case would take time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
8. In view of the above, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
The decision to grant bail was based on the nature of injuries, the status of the co-accused, and the prolonged trial process.
The determination of the aggressor in a case of version and cross-version lies within the domain of the trial court, and the lack of criminal antecedents and completion of investigation can be consid....
The court considered the prolonged custody, lack of specific allegations, and delay in trial due to the Covid-19 pandemic as grounds for granting bail.
The court considered the prolonged custody period, delay in trial, and the bail status of co-accused as grounds for granting regular bail to the petitioner.
Granting of bail based on absence of specific allegations or injuries attributed to the petitioner and the likelihood of trial taking time.
The decision to grant bail was influenced by the absence of injuries, the petitioner's prolonged custody, and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
